User talk:TheAuthoritativeSource

February 2022
Hello, I'm Plantsurfer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Glutaraldehyde, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Plant surfer 11:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Glutaraldehyde. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Plant surfer 17:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Glutaraldehyde, you may be blocked from editing. ''Using language such as "a prick" is not appropriate language to use, even in edit summaries, to describe other editors. You will be reported if you continue to use such language. Thank you.'' ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Glutaraldehyde. Plant surfer 22:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 03:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah I've been slacking on the block front! Explain this edit — TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 04:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy to explain 1st as to the bias of the sources. i dont know if you have a PACER login, so i provided a news story with the gist of it.

Some would try to hide behind the fact that Factcheck.org was certified by the IFCN, however its certification was carried out by by Julie Homchick who has a self professed political agenda  because Critical theory is founded with the intent to drive change its adherents must by necessity have an objective to drive change to.

This can be verified quickly on the phone with her office during business hours. ((redacted) (please let me know when you have called her so i can remove the information, its public but i dont want to draw to much attention to it.)) or you can email her for verification at (redacted)

i could provide a few other articles about factcheck.org's bias... but oddly enough factcheck.org deemed that information incorrect. They investigated themselves and found themselves innocent. odd that.

on to the rest of the edit.

The notations about the ministry of truth is obvious satire of 1984

This satire is relevant based on the small sample of edits i cited as references. Since 2018 Soibangla has been editing articles with a political agenda. It becomes pretty clear to anyone that reviews his edits. Nothing but politics, and clearly prejudicial.

As to the blocking, i kept this to the talk page, NOT an article. Most of the public barely knows the talk pages exist, and they are the appropriate forum for such discourse.

sorry forgot to signTheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

im not sure if you are offline, or if i need to use this tag to get attention TheAuthoritativeSource (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Only one open request is needed at a time. If you wish to notify a particular user, place  as it appears here(not in the edit window where I have placed coding to suppress its function) when you write a post. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless the most sensitive personal information is involved, Wikipedia matters are handled on Wikipedia for openness and transparency. We don't contact people off wiki related to Wikipedia matters. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The explanation the block is "not here to build an encyclopedia". Perhaps you missed it. You seem to be here to pursue a political agenda; it's not the location of your edits. If you are here to build an encyclopedia, please tell how. No problems whatsoever with my self respect. If you think I am losing sleep over this, I'm not. I have nothing else to say; your request will be reviewed by someone else, whatever happens will be up to the next admin, not me. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.